The Weight of Water (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and
Tuna

In terms of the basic plot line, The Weight of Water
has many things in common with Gwyneth Paltrow's Possession.In both of those films, someone from the present is
investigating a mystery in the past, and that experience is causing
them to reflect on their own lives. Weight of Water is actually the
earlier movie, although it passed through its theatrical release
virtually unnoticed in 2000.

The films are not similar in tone, however, and
they relate the parallel stories in very different ways. Possession
is a more straightforward film. Two literary scholars co-operate in
the investigation of a secret and theretofore unsuspected
relationship between two nineteenth century poets. Each of the
modern day scholars specializes in one of the Victorian lovers,
paired off by matching sexes. Gwyneth Paltrow, for example, is a
specialist in the woman being investigated. She feels she knows the
woman, and she identifies with her. When all of her assumptions
about the female poet are challenged, she begins to re-examine her
analysis of the poet and of herself as well. The fact that the poet
turned out to be more open to the varieties and richness of love
than previously thought caused Gwyneth to open herself up in a
similar way. All in all, that was quite a tidy script.

The Weight of Water is far less contrived than
that, and more subtle. Unfortunately, contrivance can be as
underrated as subtlety is overrated. The problem with this subtle,
uncontrived approach is that it is just not interesting. The script
is constantly searching for profundity, and perhaps it succeeds in
that quest from time to time, but this water was a little too
weighty for my taste. It seeks depth while sacrificing a compelling
narrative.

A female photographer/journalist is investigating
a 19th century double murder among the mostly Norwegian immigrants
on the rugged islands off the coast of New Hampshire. Her husband's
brother has a boat, and the two couples turn the research into a
working vacation of sorts. The journalist wants to understand the
case fully, so she gets so far into the psychology of the characters
in the past that she is dreaming about them, imagining them. She
concludes that the crime was not committed by the person or for the
reasons normally imagined.

In the present, her marriage to a Pulitzer-winning
poet is experiencing difficulties, and that situation is not made
any easier by the fact that her husband is flirting with his
brother's girlfriend. It is especially troubling since the
girlfriend looks a lot like the gorgeous British model/actress,
Elizabeth Hurley. In fact, exactly like her. Ms. Hurley seems to
spend all of her screen time making eyes at the husband, sunbathing
topless, and sucking suggestively on various household objects.

It is always difficult to manage parallel stories
in the past and present. Looking back on the films which have used
that device, not many of them are that memorable, for various
reasons. The greatest weakness of the device in this particular
avatar is that the connection between the past and the present is
tenuous. I was watching carefully, mindful of that very link, and I
saw only one very good use of the past story to explain something in
the present. There is a brief period in the present day story when
the journalist's actions seem inexplicable unless one understands
what actually happened in the past, as well as the journalist's
perception of it. That moment rang through like a powerful bell, but
the rest of the film almost seemed like two unrelated stories being
cut together randomly.

I guess I could live with the sudden merging of
the characters' motivations from previously unsuspected connections
if the two stories were each supremely interesting, or even if one
of them was, but in this case neither of the two separate stories,
if viewed separately, would really hold one's attention. Even the
double axe murder in the past is dull because there is no surprise
in the story's retelling. We are led to believe from the very outset
that the accused murderer is innocent, and we are led to believe who
really did it and why. The fully detailed story simply confirms what
we had already inferred. There is a surprise twist in the present,
but I can't say it is one that will provide much of a reward to the
viewer for having watched faithfully through the contemporary story
filled with portentous exchanges and meaningful glances.

The film's formula was consistent, but
unsuccessful: (languorous, meaningful glancing and pregnant pausing
in the present) + (a complete lack of surprises in the past) =
boredom. The entire project is slow and arty, and the running
time has been padded with recitations from poetry. I'm not surprised
that the film was such a complete failure at the box office.

Elizabeth Hurley shows her breasts while
trying to prevent some papers from blowing away while she was
sunbathing topless. She also pokes out of most of her outfits.

Ulrich Thomsen shows his butt and a bit more when he was
photographed from behind while removing his pants

TUNA's THOUGHTS

The Weight of Water (2000) essentially
consists of two parallel
stories:

The first is a century-old murder on a remote New England
island. Two women were
brutally murdered, and a German immigrant was convicted and
hanged for the crime. The only survivor (Sarah Polley) is the
chief witness. Her sister and her brother's wife were murdered.

In the second, a photographer for a
magazine has been assigned to take some pictures for an article
on the century-old murder She decides to drag along her
intellectual husband (Sean Penn) to try to revive their
failing marriage. They will be taken to the island by the
husband's
brother, who owns a yacht, and who brings along his
girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley). The girlfriend sets her sights on
Penn, who is a famed poet with a Pulitzer prize. The journalist, from the beginning, senses
psychically, that there is more to the past story than the simple
conviction, and she finally uncovers evidence which demonstrates who really
committed the murders.

This was a major flop from a respected director, Katherine
Bigelow (Strange Days). The action switches between the two
stories in a nearly random manner, and attempts to show
parallels between stories that just don't have many. Certainly,
both stories tell of an unhappy marriage, but, frankly, each
story distracts from the other and they do not
fit well together.

I will say that I watched the entire film without hitting fast
forward. The scenery made for very nice visuals, and the 100
year old part of the story was especially well photographed. I was involved enough to wonder how it would end, but
was not overly impressed with the fruit of my efforts.

The
Critics Vote

General consensus: two
stars. Ebert 2/4, Berardinelli 2/4, and most others in the
same ballpark, or ever a hair lower.

The box office was virtually nil.
$103,000, making the $16 million investment a virtual
write-off. It got a 27 screen trial, and even that proved
excessive relative to its appeal.

The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is.

My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.

Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.